Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Wednesday, 7 December 2022
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Pre-Agriculture and Fisheries Council Meeting: Discussion
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Before we begin, I remind members, witnesses and those in the Public Gallery to turn off their mobile phones.
The purpose of today's meeting is to undertake an examination of the forthcoming Agriculture and Fisheries Council and fish quotas decommissioning. In the first session, the committee will hear from the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy McConalogue, and in the second session, we will hear from representatives of the fishing industry.
I ask that people exercise personal responsibility to protect themselves against Covid 19.
Witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that witnesses have a full defence in any defamation action arising from anything said in a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the directions of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse comments should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who choose to give evidence from locations outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to utterances of members participating online in committee meetings when their participation is within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurance in relation to participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts and members should be mindful of this when contributing.
Our meeting is a pre-Agriculture and Fisheries Council discussion. In this first session, the committee will hear from the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Charlie McConalogue. I ask the Minister to make his opening statement.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the committee for this opportunity to outline my main issues of concern ahead of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting this coming weekend. To examine the implications for Ireland of quota setting proposals for 2023, a sustainability impact assessment, SIA, was carried out and brought before this committee on 25 October last. The SIA draws its conclusions from a public consultation process with all major stakeholders, including industry representatives and environmental NGOs, and expert contributions from the Marine Institute and Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM. I am joined today by Mr. Dominic Rihan from BIM and Mr. Ciaran Kelly from the Marine Institute and, from my own team, Mr. Cecil Beamish and Ms Josephine Kelly. At our meeting we had a good engagement on the issues arising and discussion on how the scientific advice on the state of the fish stock may impact our quotas for 2023.
As the negotiations on quotas for 2023 were progressing, I met industry representatives on 22 November and discussed in detail all issues and our negotiating positions on quota setting for 2023. I heard their concerns and discussed the options that are likely to arise and how these may be pursued effectively to help support our fishing and processing sectors. As the committee is aware, multiple fisheries negotiations of direct concern for Ireland have been going on simultaneously for the past number of weeks. This week alone has seen coastal states negotiations involving the EU, Norway, UK, the Faroes and Iceland on a new sharing arrangement for mackerel, bilateral negotiations between the EU and the UK, bilateral negotiations in parallel between the EU and Norway, and trilateral negotiations between the EU, UK and Norway on setting the 2023 fishing opportunities for shared stocks.
It is useful I think, at the outset, to reflect on the overall situation for the stocks of importance to Ireland. The Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, provides that total allowable catches, TACs, and quotas are set at exploitation rates that can produce maximum sustainable yield. Fishing at maximum sustainable yield, or FMSY as it is known, is the largest average catch or yield that can continuously be taken from a stock under existing environmental conditions and without undermining the future health and sustainability of that stock.
Progress is being made in terms of the sustainability of fish stocks. For 2022, 38 stocks of interest to Ireland have been fished below FMSY. In 2013, only 20 stocks were fished at this sustainable level. So we have gone from fishing 20 stocks at below what was regarded as sustainable nine years ago to 38 now. The number of stocks overfished in 2022 is 15, but it must be noted that this is down by 22 from previous years. This is a significant achievement and Ireland will continue to work with stakeholders, the Commission, other member states and third countries to build on this progress to achieve our objectives of healthy fish stocks and sustainable fishing.
I will now go into some detail on the main Irish concerns and how these will fit into next week’s AGRIFISH Council meeting in Brussels. The EU-UK bilateral negotiations have been going on for four weeks now and I have been closely monitoring developments on an ongoing basis. Obviously, the EU-UK negotiations are something we have only had for the past couple of years and are as a result of Brexit. Prior to that, the UK was another member state and the negotiation around stocks that we fish jointly with it would have been done as part of the December Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting. Now, that negotiation has to be completed with the UK before we can settle our situation within the EU. These talks are particularly important for us as almost all of our commercial stocks are dealt with under this bilateral process and involve stocks in which we have a particular interest, such as Celtic Sea haddock, west of Scotland stocks and spurdog, to name a few.
We have, at EU level, taken a position that there should be a common approach across sea basins in relation to how to manage mixed fisheries interactions. The UK has been seeking that all our targeted whitefish stocks and nephrops in the Celtic Sea are set below the scientific advice. In negotiations so far, the UK has been seeking to set the quota at an even lower level than what has been scientifically recommended as sustainable. That is its negotiating position at the moment. Here in Ireland and within the EU, we are fully committed to managing our fisheries in a sustainable way and to rebuilding depleted and overfished stocks. We continue to promote the use of innovative technical measures to limit unwanted by-catches of overfished stocks.
BIM has been at the forefront of working with industry to identify and trial effective measures. The EU has accepted many of these measures and these are now a requirement for our mixed fisheries. We support FMSY and we are supportive of setting TACs in all our sea basins at this level and in accordance with the arrangements set down in the multi-annual management plan for western waters.
Unfortunately, the EU and the UK remain quite far apart on a number of issues, and this year, as in previous years, it appears the UK is again attempting to use time pressure leading in to the Council next week to seek concessions from the EU side. This, along with its demands to reduce TACs below the scientific advice for stocks of no relevance to the UK could undermine the economic well-being of our fleets. I have spoken to other EU fisheries ministers on this matter and, at my instigation, I, along with my fellow fisheries ministers from France, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium, wrote formally to EU Fisheries Commissioner Sinkeviius last week to insist on these tactics being resisted and to say we should not be afraid of no deal.
We want to follow the scientific advice and I cannot accept going below the recommended levels except in exceptional situations where such a course of action is fully justified. Under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, we are obliged to try to reach agreement each year by the 10 December or 20 December at the latest. If that proves impossible, provisional TACs, taking account of seasonality, will have to be agreed at the Council meeting to be applied from 1 January, and talks with the UK would resume in that circumstance in the New Year. The Council adopted provisional TACs for the first three months of the year for both 2021 and 2022 because of delays in securing an EU-UK agreement. While this situation is not ideal, it does, if needed, provide certainty and continuity for our fishing industry in the new year, particularly for the pelagic segment which does most of its fishing in the first three months of the year.
I will now move on to provisional TAC setting.
The European Commission made proposals to set provisional total allowable catch, TAC, levels for 2023 on Monday evening. This is for the potential eventuality that no agreement is reached with the UK before the Council meets next week. It announced those provisional TAC proposals on Monday. I am seeking amendments to these proposals it came forward with for a number of stocks to take account of their seasonality. Some are fished more heavily at the start of the year than later in the year. I will be seeking that the full TAC and quota are set for mackerel and Atlanto-Scandian herring. If an EU-Norway agreement is reached, I will seek that 100% of blue whiting is made available and if the agreement is not in place, that most of the TAC is available for the early part of the year. I will also seek that the porcupine nephrops, or prawns, TAC reflects the seasonal pattern of that fishery. I am hopeful an EU-UK agreement will be in place and that we will not need to set provisional TACs and quotas. In reality, this is an insurance package and one we might have to use so it is important it is available.
I will insist on invoking the Hague preferences, which are an integral part of relative stability. I will insist they are applied in the usual way on relevant stocks. We have always taken a cautious approach to applying them, taking into account the state of each stock, economic necessity and the impacts on others with whom we need to co-operate. As the committee will be aware, the Hague preferences are agreed by qualified majority voting in the Council. Many Member States strenuously object to the application of the Hague preferences as the additional quota for Ireland is deducted from their allocations. Ensuring the preferences are applied in the normal way is a priority objective for me in the negotiations.
I will now set out our position in respect of blue whiting under an EU-Norway agreement. We have a small benefit from this agreement in our quota of arctic cod. The key currency the EU uses to pay for arctic cod from Norway is Norwegian access to Ireland’s 200 mile zone and the transfer of EU blue whiting to Norway from western waters. For the past two years, I have engaged constructively on this issue and the EU has agreed an approach I can support. This involves keeping the transfer of blue whiting to Norway at a manageable level, in percentage terms, which is 4% of the global TAC, and in tonnes, which is 31,500. That is a reduction from the previous 9% transfer which means the transfer has almost been halved.
As a concession to Norway and in order to support an agreement that benefited the other member states, in 2021 and 2022 I accepted that the Norwegian fleet would be granted access to EU waters for blue whiting to all of areas VI and VII which involves Ireland’s 200 miles zone. This exceptional access agreement for Norway was conditional on EU transfers to Norway being set at 31,500 tonnes and in a situation where total Norwegian blue whiting fishing possibilities in the Irish 200-mile zone were much lower than what is being talked about for the coming year. I have made the case that the transfer of blue whiting to Norway should not increase above last year’s level. I am also pushing to have Norwegian access to the Irish zone limited to the total level allocated in 2022. I am keeping a direct line of communication on these negotiations with Commissioner Sinkeviius and have asked him to discuss any proposed movement that goes beyond our stated position in advance.
With regard to coastal states mackerel, the third set of negotiations happening this week of high importance for Ireland is the coastal states consultations on sharing arrangements. This involves the EU, Iceland, the UK, the Faroe Islands and Greenland. The last sharing arrangement ended in 2020 and since then unilateral excessive quotas have been set by Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland. I am relatively pleased with how the talks are developing so far as the Commission has taken on board Irish suggestions regarding how sharing arrangements might look in the future and our positioning in these talks. Ireland will continue to work closely with like-minded member states and engage with the Commission to keep the pressure on to get an increased share for the EU. There have not been any significant developments in the talks this week and the negotiations will resume in the new year.
I will now return to other issues that will arise at the Council beginning with bluefin tuna. Ireland has access to a by-catch of bluefin tuna quota, shared with a number of other member states. The fishing industry has been calling for a separate bluefin tuna quota for the Irish fleet for many years. However, tuna quota is allocated each year to member states based on relative stability as established in the late 1990s. At that time, Ireland did not have a track record of commercial fishing for bluefin tuna and accordingly, did not receive a quota allocation. Things have changed. Before Brexit, the UK, like Ireland, as a non-quota holder was only entitled to avail of an EU by-catch provision for bluefin tuna. Under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, TCA, to reflect the arrangement when the UK was an EU member state, a small portion of the EU bluefin tuna quota was transferred to the UK. Separately, as a now independent contracting party to the international organisation that regulates tuna fishing, the UK has also received an additional 15 tonne quota. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, ICCAT, has now determined that the UK has a quota of 63 tonnes for the period 2023 to 2025 and this is not subject to a by-catch only restriction. If there is a case for an allocation for the UK, there is an equally strong case for Ireland within the EU given the abundance of bluefin tuna in our waters. My team made clear to EU member states and the European Commission at EU internal meetings during the course of last month's ICCAT meeting that Ireland considers there to be a case for an allocation of part of the increase in the EU’s bluefin tuna quota to be made available to Ireland for a targeted fishery. Given the prevalence of bluefin tuna in Ireland's exclusive economic zone, EEZ, we wish this request to be considered at the Council. Opening up this issue will be difficult and other member states have always resisted any discussion on amending relative stability for this stock. I have requested the opening of discussions at EU level to progress our case and I will be making a formal statement to this effect at next week's December AGRIFISH Council.
In respect of fishing areas IIa and IV, I will turn to the issue of the mackerel TAC in Norwegian waters. The questions originally raised by Ireland in September 2021 about the continuation of this quota have now been answered clearly by a legal analysis carried out by the Commission, supported by the Council legal service. That analysis confirmed the IIa and IVa Norwegian waters mackerel quota only ever existed in the context of reciprocal quota transfers between the EU western waters component and Norway. As there has been no Norway agreement in recent years, no transfer took place, which means the quota never left the western waters component. That is the legal reality. This is why the default position is that the full TAC amount should be made available in fishing opportunities to western-waters quota holders from whom it used to be transferred in the past, in line with the normal relative stability key. This view is strongly contested by Denmark, the long standing beneficiaries of this quota. I have said all along that I fully accept that such a scenario would mean a significant quota loss to Denmark and I am prepared to take account of that in our collective deliberations. The Commission proposed five possible ways-forward of which three are possibilities I could consider supporting. The most recent discussions showed that, of those member states that expressed a preference, five were supportive of Ireland and two were supportive of the Danish position. Denmark continues to reject the Commission analysis and insist the quota belongs to it in its entirety. This ignores the clear origin of the quota in the western waters component. Given the divergent views and the concerns expressed by some that this issue could distract from the ongoing negotiations, the Presidency is inclined to leave the status of the TAC for 2023 as “to be established”. This is far from desirable as it means we have lost our rightful fishing opportunities in 2021, 2022 and will possibly lose them in 2023. That said, we have a previous Council and Commission statement to the effect that whatever solution is ultimately found it will be applied retrospectively. This is a complex issue as illustrated by the length of time it has taken to date with no sign of an early resolution. However, Ireland has a strong case and I will continue to press Irish interests for as long as it takes and we will have to wait to see if the issue evolves in the Council.
I recognise the work of the wider industry and stakeholders for their constructive engagement throughout this extremely busy and challenging period. I thank the committee for its interest and look forward to engagement and discussion today on the Council meeting and how we can ensure we get the best possible outcome from it.
Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Chair, the Minister and his officials for coming before the committee. I have many questions and my colleagues do as well. To be fair to them, I will try to go through all of my questions together. Perhaps the Minister can take note of them to answer them. Discussion on the quotas and decommissioning is coming up and is of concern to many fishermen.
As regards bluefin tuna, which the Minister mentioned, throughout the 1990s Irish fishing boats from ports on the south-west coast targeting albacore tuna by means of driftnets also fished for cod and landed bluefin tuna in waters stretching from the Bay of Biscay to the Celtic Sea. One boat in particular that fished from Casltetownbere targeted bluefin alone while fishing by means of long lines. At the European Council meeting held in December 1998 bluefin tuna became an EU quota species and the then newly appointed Minister for the Marine, Deputy Joe Walsh, by his own admission and in response to a question put to him in the Dáil on his return from Brussels by former a Minister, Eamon Gilmore, admitted that Ireland had failed to apply for a share in the EU total allowable catch, TAC, for bluefin tuna permitted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, ICCAT. In every year following 1998 successive Irish Ministers have failed to and refused to even apply for a quota for Irish fishing boats to fish bluefin tuna. This is despite the fact that north Atlantic bluefin tuna has in every year over the past 25 years gradually migrated for its autumn and winter feeding grounds north of the Bay of Biscay to the west and south coasts of Ireland. This northwards migration of bluefin tuna has been proven by research conducted on bluefin tuna conducted by scientists from both Stanford and Exeter Universities, working out of Galway and that was published in August 2020. Having regard to the rights of coastal states under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, UNCLOS, and in particular having regard to those same rights pursuant to the agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks reached in New York in November 1995 in accordance with UNCLOS, can the Minister explain why has Ireland not applied for a bluefin quote for Irish fishermen and fisherwomen at any time since December 1998 and has, in fact, refused to apply for such a quota? Is there any rational basis for refusing to apply for a bluefin tuna quota having regard to the fact that bluefin migrates northwards into Irish waters from late July of every year where it remains while feeding on native Irish stocks of fish including spawning and nursery stocks until January or as late as February the following year prior to its migration southwards to itself breed and spawn in tropical waters? The Minister might be able to answer that. There is far more on bluefin tuna but I have to move on other issues related to decommissioning.
Decommissioning is a very important issue and the Minister may be able to answer my questions. Why are different criteria applied to boats decommissioning in other EU states than those being applied to Irish fishermen? Second, is it true that fishing fleets in countries that were temporarily paid aid to cease fishing activity will not have to pay back this money when they decommission their boats, as is required of Irish fishermen who also temporarily ceased fishing? If I am going too quickly please ask me to stall and I can go back. Third, in the conditions attached to the Irish tie-up scheme, were Irish fishermen notified that this money would be returned if they later applied to and were successful in accessing the decommissioning scheme? Fourth, does the Minister personally agree that money paid to compensate these fishermen for loss of earnings should be returned and have these fishermen not lost enough under this Government by its gifting away of 25% of the actual fish they were catching? Fifth, will the Minister admit that the 15%, which is misleading to the Dáil and which the Minister keeps mentioning, that fishermen have lost is incorrect as this is a paper figure and does not reflect that the actual fish given away represents a minimum of 25% of the fish they were catching and landing?
This will be my last question and I am sorry for taking up so much time but this is important. The Minister is aware and always said to me that the organisations were unanimous in relation to decommissioning and he has often accused me of not supporting it and then of supporting it. I never supported it and never will support decommissioning and I want to make that abundantly clear to the Minister. Fishermen have come to me and said that the game is over as far as they are concerned. Their livelihoods have been ruined. Can things be sped up with a compensation package so that they can get out and put bread and butter on the table? The Minister told me there was unanimous agreement by all organisations. Is he aware that the Irish South and West Fish Producer's Organisation insisted that the report produced by the taskforce must record the fact that organisation would not sign up to the decommissioning scheme that was to be based on the criteria were proposed in the report. This would clearly imply that the recommendations made by that taskforce were not unanimous. Can the Minister tell me if other members of the taskforce expressed similar views?
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There is a fair variety of questions for the Minister.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes. I thank Deputy Michael Collins for his questions. As regards bluefin tuna, as I said at the outset, I am seeking a bluefin tuna quota at this December's Council meeting and I am putting the argument in relation to the experience with what has evolved with the UK as a strong rationale as to why Ireland should be able to be recognised in that regard. The historic situation was there was not a track record of Ireland catching bluefin tuna back when the quotas were set in the 1990s and not having a track record meant there was not a quota allocated to Ireland at that time. The situation has certainly evolved since then as regards the pattern of fish presence in Irish water and that is something I believe needs to be recognised and taken into account at European level and I will certainly push hard for this.
The Deputy knows, as I do, given his experience in fisheries, how challenging it is to change anything in relation to quota or TACs. It is exceptionally difficult. Bluefin tuna is a valuable fish which is why we are interested and would like some share of it. Likewise, every member state that has a bluefin tuna quote will fight tooth and nail to hold on to what it has. I will certainly make the case strongly on that. We also have an opportunity to ask because there is a new multi-annual management plan for bluefin tuna which was adopted at ICCAT this year and that sets out a key new allocation sharing arrangement for bluefin tuna. That is the position and the backdrop.
I will ask Mr. Rihan to come in on some of the questions around the decommissioning scheme. It is being administered by Bord Iascaigh Mhara in terms of the applications. We are operating the scheme out of the Brexit Adjustment Reserve. Other member states have also proposed decommissioning schemes. My understanding is that the scheme we have come forward with is very attractive compared with what is on offer from other member states as regards the terms and conditions being made available. No more than the Deputy, I would rather see a situation where we did not have a decommissioning scheme and where there was more than enough fish to ensure we had more fish for the boats we have. I would much rather have had, and fought to have, a situation where did not lose any fish in Brexit. We fought very hard to protect our position in that. The unfortunate outcome was that Europe lost quota and of all the EU member states we lost more than others. The Marine Institute's figure and calculation of the impact of that is 15%, which is the figure I use.
Coming out of that I put together the sea fisheries taskforce to bring together the representatives of all our fishers and to consider how we would address the outcome of Brexit first but also to fight hard at European level to try to improve our position on those two fronts. We consistently fight at EU level to improve our position in any way possible. The unanimous recommendation that came from the taskforce from all organisations, and the fisher representatives were part of that, was that there should be a decommissioning scheme to size the fleet to reflect that our quota was less. For those boats that remain in the fleet, the quota freed up from those that are decommissioned is reallocated to them so they have more quota making them more economically sustainable in the time ahead. It is not a decision any fisherman or fisherwoman takes lightly and it is not the situation we want to be in. We absolutely want to have more fish. However, we have to address the situation in terms of where it is at and be very much guided by the fishing representatives themselves. I am responding to the taskforce report, which has come from them and which was unanimous.
Mr. Rihan might take some of the questions on the finer details.
Mr. Dominic Rihan:
On the Deputy's question regarding the paying back of the tie-up moneys, with the Brexit adjustment reserve, BAR, regulation there was a set of state aid guidelines produced by the Directorate-General for Competition, DG Competition, which set out the way and the measures that could be funded under the BAR scheme for fisheries. One of the conditions around temporary tie-up and decommissioning was that moneys paid out in any other scheme had to be paid back. That applied to our tie-up moneys. When our decommissioning scheme was sent to DG Competition for state aid approval, one of the conditions they insisted on was that the tie-up moneys were paid back. Without that condition they would not have approved the scheme and we would not have a decommissioning scheme. We got one concession. Our tie-up scheme had been set out whereby one third of the tie-up money was paid directly to crew. We got agreement from the Commission that it should not be paid back because the vessel owner was getting no benefit and it was going to the crew. We got that concession but it was a condition of the scheme. It was at the insistence of the Commission. We tried hard to get out of it and pointed out its unfairness but as I say, without that condition we would not have had approval for the scheme.
Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Why are there different criteria applying to boats decommissioning in other EU states to those applied to Irish fishermen?
Mr. Dominic Rihan:
The other schemes reflect the different fleet composition and structure in the other member states. The French scheme in particular is targeted at vessels that traditionally fished in the English Channel, and have been displaced from UK waters and waters around Jersey and Guernsey. Their scheme reflects those vessels. Similarly, there is a Dutch decommissioning scheme that reflects the fact that their beam trawl fleet has been very badly impacted by Brexit. Again, their scheme reflects that. The criteria are different but all the other member states went through the same state aid approval that we did. Their schemes reflect their proposals and the outcome of the negotiation they had with DG Competition. I cannot speak for DG Competition obviously as to why and if there are differences there. It is about reflecting what those fleets are and what those schemes are trying to achieve. In our case our scheme was really about trying to balance our fishing opportunities with our fleet capacity in our whitefish sector. That is where we have ended up.
Dr. Cecil Beamish:
I will make one additional point. In a lot of other member states, the vessel capacity is not a private commodity. In Ireland it is a private commodity. Therefore, when people are decommissioning that is the most valuable part of the commodity they are relinquishing. In other member states, the commodity owned by fishermen is a private quota. The quota is privatised and therefore, that is what they are relinquishing. Obviously the structure of the payments reflects the nature of the fisheries management system that has grown up and developed in the different member states. In Ireland the quota is a national asset but the capacity is privately owned. The decommissioning scheme must reflect that.
Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is it not true that fishing fleets in countries that were paid aid to temporarily cease fishing activity will not have to pay back this money when they decommission their boats, as is required for Irish fishermen who also temporarily ceased fishing?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I believe France is the only other member state that did a temporary tie-up scheme.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
From the inquiries I have made, the decommissioning scheme we put together is more generous to applicants than schemes being brought in by other member states. We have tried to reflect the impact for those that do take it up as much as possible. It is a very significant decision. The other point is that we were the first to do decommissioning. I put together the sea fisheries task force to advise me on how we could do this. Nobody ever wants to decommission. We all want to have more fish, but we have to live and deal with the reality we are dealt and which is in front of us. The representatives of fishermen, fisherwomen and the stakeholders, asked me to put that scheme in place to deal with that challenge. Subsequently, we have seen other member states come forward with decommissioning schemes post Brexit. A lot of people would have been saying to me at the start that we were the only ones doing decommissioning and that obviously we were the only ones being hit by Brexit. I always said that across the EU, pretty much all fleets have been hit by Brexit. We have taken a disproportionate burden, which is something I want to see addressed. The fact that other member states have now moved to introduce decommissioning schemes is a reflection of the fact that Brexit has impacted on them too. I have always been clear on that. They have been impacted less than we have and that is something I would like to continue seeking to address. I will also seek to make sure it is part of the considerations of common fisheries policy review.
Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In my view it is money coming from the EU for the decommissioning of boats. Surely what is applied in France or Spain has to be applied the same in Ireland. Obviously it is not, so there is more flexibility in other EU states than here. That is why, if they have a temporary cease-fishing activity, they will not have to pay back this money but from what I can see. the Irish have to. There is something funny going on there.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What I would also say is that was clear from the outset, in advance of the announcement of the tie-up schemes. It would have been clear that for anybody taking the tie-up scheme, it would have to be deducted from the decommissioning scheme. It is not something that would have come late in the day. Anybody who was considering the decommissioning would have been aware of that. Some vessels tied up as they did not plan to decommission. This meant that those vessels that did not tie up could avail of the additional quota available from tied up vessels. There would have been some benefit for those considering the decommissioning scheme as they probably would have avoided taking the tie-up scheme. They would have kept fishing and availed of the extra quota during those months because one in three boats were tied up. However, as Mr. Rihan has said, this was an insistence from the European Commission. It was not optional. It was clear from the outset and clear in advance of the tie-up scheme. I do not think there will be many who are planning to decommission who would have availed of the tie-up scheme as they would have been aware of the situation in advance. They would have been more likely to stay fishing.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My information is that our decommissioning scheme is a lot stronger and more generous than the French one.
Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Deputy Flaherty for allowing me to take his speaking spot. He said that Longford was not a fishing stronghold yet. With rising sea levels that might change, but hopefully not. It is interesting that Cork and Donegal are well represented in the committee room today. It says a lot. I want to say to the Minister at the outset, that there was a very welcome announcement today regarding the BAR funding for marine infrastructure around the coast. I am delighted to say that County Cork received more than €6 million in funding for marine infrastructure. There are some very welcome projects there. Some had already been indicated for funding under BAR, such as Cunnamore pier and Laheratanvally, to the west.
Some have new projects that have received funding, such as Schull pier. Courtmacsherry, which is close to where I live, is to receive funding for a new pontoon, which is very welcome and much needed. We have always emphasised the potential of the coastal area of Cork both from a fishing and a marine leisure perspective. This will allow it to realise that potential. I would like to see further funding. Many of these projects would have been shovel ready but there are many improvement works that need to be carried out on piers throughout west Cork that are not shovel ready and may require foreshore licences. I would like to see a fund being put in place to allow local authorities to start that process.
I acknowledge the Minister's point about holding his ground on the Celtic Sea TAC and the UK's position. That is very welcome and we support the Minister.
I have had a lot of contact this week from the inshore sector with concerns about the shrimp market. The shrimp market is collapsing this week. Fishermen were getting around €20 per kg. That has gone down to about €11 per kg and in some areas they have actually stopped taking shrimp altogether. The vast majority of the shrimp, at least in Cork and I am not sure of the situation nationally, is going to Spain. The Spanish have stopped taking it for various reasons. That is leaving many of those inshore fishing boats in a vulnerable position. Now is the time to underline again the call by inshore fishermen for some type of support scheme, following on from the inshore support scheme provided last year. Under that scheme, boats were able to avail of a grant of up to €2,700. That was very welcome but we need another scheme of the same scale, or even bigger, to address the situation with the inshore sector. It is facing the same difficulties as every other sector but the crisis with the shrimp market is highlighting it even further. Is the Minister aware of this matter and has he considered any further supports for the inshore sector in light of the crisis?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Funding for the marinas and harbours is going to make a large impact. The funding of €6 million for Cork will be significant. I also took the step today to increase the co-funding requirement to 95%. When I launched tranche 1 funding back at the start of the year it was 80% co-funding for the majority of projects. That has now gone to 95%. I have done that retrospectively. Previously announced funds that Cork would have got earlier in the year will now be funded to the tune of 95% also. That should relieve the pressure that this funding is putting on the local authority in terms of the co-funding aspect. I recognise the Deputy's advocacy for those projects that got funded.
Regarding shrimp, the Deputy has made representations to me about this issue previously. It certainly seems to be an emerging challenge. The inshore sector is important in terms of employment, particularly in the Cork area. The €2,700 payment was an important support coming out of the Brexit process. The payment rates for boats of over 10 m was €4,000 per vessel. We had 790 applications to that fund. I am aware of the importance of the sector and I will continue to engage with the Deputy on the issues. The challenging market situation is something over which we have limited control but I will certainly continue to work on it.
Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
All sectors, inshore, pelagic and polyvalent, need support regarding fuel. This has been called for regularly and it has been done in other EU countries. I reiterate that this support is needed. The Minister has spoken positively about this in recent weeks. It seems the escalating fuel costs will not ease off any time soon so the challenges are still there. These costs are very much eating into the profit margins of fishermen, whatever size boat they are using and whatever fish species they are targeting. Will the Minister comment on this?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The cost of fuel this year has been a real challenge across the economy but particularly challenging for fisheries, given the high percentage of overall costs that fuel makes up for fishing. We did not have the capacity to do anything from a revenue point of view in relation to marine gas oil because the only tax applied to it is VAT, which is fully reclaimable. As a result, our options in that regard were non-existent.
Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Those with an outboard petrol engine pay tax on the petrol but cannot claim it back.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
However, I extended the tie-up scheme, which finished at the end of November, by one month to ensure fishing remains viable and economic. The sea-fisheries task force proposed a one-month tie-up scheme in response to Brexit. I increased that to a second month after the invasion of Ukraine. I increased that to a second month after the invasion of Ukraine. This was to ensure that for boats going fishing they had more fish to catch. It made the economics stack up in recognition of the fact that fuel was a significant and increased burden.
I have been engaging with the industry on its request and the pressure that remains around fuel. I am engaging at Government level as well in relation to the capacity and potential for support. The importance of the inshore sector is in discussion. Coming out of Brexit, the sums of €2,700 or €4,000 for vessels of 10 m or more, showed that the inshore sector is one that we have sought to support. The Deputy raised the issue of fuel pressure and this is very much on my radar in the discussions I am having.
Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We are all aware of the challenges facing the sector, as Deputy Collins outlined, especially in the wake of Brexit. There is an opportunity for a bit of a reprieve for the sector if we can address the issue of Rockall island and the being able to fish the grounds around there. I Googled it and the first line that comes up is that "Rockall island is an uninhabited island". If one can establish that an island is uninhabited or uninhabitable, then the 12 nautical mile exclusion zone should not apply. Rockall is very important for many Irish boats for some non-quota species. I would like to see this issue revisited. Whatever about who claims sovereignty over Rockall, the fact that it is uninhabited means the 12 nautical mile exclusion zone should not apply. Therefore, those boats that traditionally went to fish there should be allowed to fish there again.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Rockall is an important fishery. Ireland has never made any claims to Rockall but we have never recognised British sovereignty over the island either. Accordingly, we have never recognised a 12 nautical mile territorial sea around it either. That remains the position of the Government. At every opportunity, the Government is engaging with regard to access within the 12 nautical mile limit. A relatively small number of boats are impacted by this but it is a really important fishery for them. I know it is important to boats in Cork and Greencastle in Donegal as well as other ports. Last year, in recognition of that economic loss, I provided additional flexibility under the tie-up scheme to recognise the fact that this good fishery was not open for them.
Last year, in recognition of the impact of the economic loss to them, I provided additional flexibility under the tie-up scheme to recognise the fact the squid fishery was not open to them. We continue to pursue the matter.
Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is a pity we could not have this meeting the other way round, that is, the fish producer organisations presenting first in order that the Minister could observe and respond. It is a pity the Minister's schedule did not permit that. It would have been a much more productive way of doing things. However, we have the submissions from the producer organisations and they make for sober reading. In particular, the submission from the Irish Fish Producers Organisation is disturbing. That is the only way to describe it. If we look at fish processing per country, Ireland had a total value of €627 million in 2015. In 2020, that had decreased to €325 million. It almost halved in five years. That is the context of these negotiations. In the lead-up to Brexit, we saw the halving of the value of our processing industry. That is devastating.
We then get into the landing of Irish vessels. As I am my party's spokesperson on fisheries and the marine, I have seen a lot of data but this submission is utterly devastating. The landing of Irish vessels was reduced by a third between 2012 and 2021. The landing of foreign vessels has increased by 145%. That says what it says. The Irish fishing industry is declining and more and more foreign vessels are landing here. The gap is widening all the time. In turnover, Ireland went from third in value as a seafood industry down to tenth. It should be remembered that we have one of the longest coastlines, certainly in comparison with northern European countries. This is an immense resource we have. How can the value of our seafood processing industry have been halved before Brexit? I will get to Brexit in a second.
I assume this submission can be made available to the Minister. Is that correct, Chair?
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes.
Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I ask the Minister to take a look at the submission from the Irish Fish Producers Organisation. It is devastating. That is the only way to describe it. That is the context of our industry before we get to Brexit.
Brexit is dealt with in this report and in the submission by Sean O'Donoghue from the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation. Ireland took 40% of the EU's loss in fisheries resulting from the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and that was after the devastating loss we saw in the lead up to Brexit. There has never been an acceptance of fair burden-sharing or levelling up, as some in the industry refer to it.
As the Minister will be aware, fishermen want to fish. They do not want to be tied up, but they have been tied up and are now being decommissioned. We are looking at the whitefish sector being one third of what it was 15 years ago. There are only two island nations in the European Union, namely, Cyprus and Ireland, and our whitefish sector is now one third of what it was 15 years ago. I have already mentioned the devastating decline in the value of the processing industry. That means the loss of jobs and wealth across our communities. I do not see any evidence of an improvement in the solidarity of the European Union. That is a diplomatic failure of our State in negotiations. There is no other way around that. There was no burden-sharing or fairness for a State that already had a deeply declining seafood sector despite the length of its coastline. Belgium has a bigger seafood industry although it has a fraction of the length of our coastline. Germany has a smaller coastline than Ireland but has multiples of our seafood industry.
I will ask a few questions in the time I have left. Is the Minister aware that the Norwegian request on blue whiting is an entirely new and additional request beyond any existing arrangement regarding blue whiting access? What did Ireland submit before September to the Commission regarding our priorities on the issue of blue whiting? What was our position? What did we ask for? What was our plan?
The Marine Institute recently shared graphics on the migratory pattern of blue whiting, including stock book data. The additional access the Norwegians are looking for would provide them with ease of access to blue whiting worth more than €120 million in our exclusive economic zone, EEZ, while Ireland would be left with a quota of €11.8 million.
Is the Minister willing to defend the industry's position and vote to deny the additional access to the Norwegians in 2023 and keep them north of the 56° line and west of the 10° line?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Chair and Deputy Mac Lochlainn. It would have been preferable to have the fishing organisations earlier rather than later. I have certainly spoken to them earlier. I have been engaging with them on an ongoing basis. I met them approximately ten days ago for three hours. I also met them not so long before that to discuss these issues. There is nothing new in this to me. I am fully plugged into and battling for the national position. I am working closely with industry representatives on that and I encourage industry representatives to take the battle to their industry colleagues in other member states. As the Deputy will be aware, in the same way as I respond to the Irish fishing sector to try to support it and get the best possible outcome for it, other governments do the same for their industries. It is important our industry brings that argument to the European industry arena and navigates there, as I do at a political level in Europe.
I received the request to attend the committee last week. That was short notice for me but I did my best to accommodate it as I wanted to be here. In the same way as my schedule did not allow me to attend later, the option was open to the committee to accommodate the meeting earlier. I did my best to be here and I am sure the committee also had its logistical challenges around not being able to facilitate it the other way around.
Regarding the figures the Deputy presented about the processing industry and other figures over the years, there are variables. They include what we catch and what we take in for processing from other fleets. As the Deputy will be aware, most of our processing plants, especially in Killybegs, are active, not only in landing every piece of Irish quota possible into our processing factories but also trying to be competitive in attracting all fish from any fleet. The more fish that comes in, the more there is to process, the more fish we add value to and the more employment is created in our processing sector. That is something they are proactive on. It can vary. On the overall figures in processing over the years-----
Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
These statistics I quoted from are from the EUROSTAT data bank so the submission has been made on it. Can I clarify whether the Minister is saying that this information is wrong? Did the full value of fish processing indicators for Ireland not reduce from 627 to 325 in five years? The total value has halved in five years, according to these statistics. Is he disputing that?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is not what I said at all. The point I was going on to make relates to relative stability and our national share of the European quota. The relative shares we have had of various fish stocks, on which we are engaging with other non-EU states at the moment, were set in the early 1980s under relative stability. Despite the annual battles and the reviews of the CFP that have happened since, those allocation keys have remained constant. Our shares of quotas have been constant. The big impact on our quotas since relative stability was established for most of our stocks was the Brexit impact in the past two years, which has been significant. I continue to try to have this addressed at European level. What we have also seen are changes over the years. I outlined in my submission how we have been moving at European level in recent years using the same allocation keys, and using the same relative stability percentages within member states to a situation where the vast majority of our fishing stocks were fished at unsustainable levels. We were overfishing at European level. The scientific data was not necessarily always as strong as it is now to know that was the case, but we were overfishing. Where a country is overfishing, it has a bigger quota, even though our percentage of it has always remained the same.
However, we have all been trying to move to a situation where we are fishing at a sustainable yield level so we are not taking more out than is sustainable. Deputy Cahill will know this well from a farming point of view. A farmer does not reduce his number of cows because he will have fewer calves the next year. He maintains the breeding stock at a sustainable level and does not reduce it below that level. It is easy to do at farm level where somebody owns his or her herd, and can see that. It is much harder in open seas and the fish roam all over the place. You are depending on everybody to manage it. Over the past number of years we have moved to a situation where we are trying to manage stocks at sustainable yield levels. Thankfully we have made progress on that. It is in all of our interests long term that we do fish at sustainable yield levels otherwise the stock gets eroded. We have seen that with herring. Many ports around the country were coming down with herring over the generations, like for example Downings in Buncrana in the home county of the Deputy and myself. Herring was a great industry. That fishery is now closed because it was overfished and it is now in recovery mode. We see the same with cod, which is an important stock as well. That has an impact. The quotas have not changed, but the volume of fish that can be landed has changed. A lot of this is down to sustainable yields. Some fisheries have closed because they were overfished. The other variable is what we are processing coming from other fleets, which our fish factories are always very competitive in attracting.
Turning to Brexit and the burden sharing, as the Deputy will be aware, that is something I have been adamant on over the past couple of years at European level in pointing out the unfair burden we took on as part of that. I was forthright in the negotiations in seeking to protect our national position. I worked closely with the industry in that regard. I was insistent in the engagement I had at European level. As I have said to the Deputy previously, at the time it was in the mix, there was a two and a half week period where there was not a word out of Sinn Féin regarding the ongoing Brexit negotiations and the threat to our fish. The deal-----
Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I might be in the Minister's shoes some day and then we will see how that goes.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will move on to blue whiting. There have been a couple of negotiations over the past two years. I have had success working at European level on reducing the transfer of blue whiting. The year previous to the first year I started negotiations, the transfer had been at the rate of 9%. We successfully reduced that to 4% the year before last. We held it at that for 2022. Last year, the total value of the blue whiting transfer to Norway was 31,500 tonnes. If it had been at the previous rate of 9%, it would have been a transfer of nearly 70,000 tonnes. We managed to get it reduced from around 70,000 tonnes to approximately 31,000 tonnes. That meant we had roughly an extra 10,000 tonnes was available to our fisheries nationally last year and this year. This is done every year. It is a negotiation every year. We are in a new mix and in a new battle, a new fight, and a new engagement. There is no guarantee we will have the success we have had the past two years.
The backdrop starting off this year is that the scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, for blue whiting is that it should increase by 81%. It is a good starting position. All things being equal, the quota will go up by 81% this year compared to last year. There is this issue around the transfer at Norway and how that evolves. There is also the issue of where Norwegian fishermen can get access to fish their quota. The transfer will change their quota but they also have a quota of their own. As with mackerel where we fish a lot of our quota in the north sea and outside Irish waters, other fleets would fish blue whiting in our waters. That is up for debate as well. My objective is to get the best outcome we can for ourselves to restrict the transfer to the lowest possible. Our starting negotiating position was to hold it at what it was at last year. That was 31,000 tonnes. That would represent a percentage reduction from the 4% transfer last year because the overall advice is for an 81% increase in quota. That is our starting position. It will be difficult to hold, but that is our negotiating position. Our negotiating position is also to restrict any access from Norway into Irish waters to fish their share. This is something that will evolve and it is ongoing. There were negotiations last week that broke down without conclusion. They are ongoing again this week but we are holding a very hard line. We will continue battling hard to get a good outcome. Ultimately, the Norwegian issue in terms of blue whiting, and all of the other issues, go into an overall package and ultimately there is qualified majority voting at European level, so we have to engage with other member states and stay relevant to the negotiation too. If we make ourselves irrelevant to the negotiations by putting ourselves beyond the pale, we will not be part of reaching an ultimate agreement and other member states will not pay as much attention to us. We have to get the best outcome we can but that also involves staying in the mix. That is the objective and that is where we are at.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I agree with Deputy MacLochlainn that it would be have been more helpful if we could have other fishery organisations here in advance of the Minister's appearance. I know it is not the his responsibility. However, given that this series is part of an annual event, maybe it is something that could be set out on annual basis where they come in to the committee before the Minister. We would have a more constructive consideration and the committee should take that on board and work on. I have a number of questions relating to different aspects of the negotiations. The Minister has touched on some of them, but I want to clarify what he means in parts of his statement. For instance, he states that he is relatively pleased with what is happening regarding the coastal states' mackerel. What does that mean for fishing from the outcome of the talks?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am pleased that the Irish position has been taken on board and recognised by the Commission. The negotiations are ongoing but I was referring simply to our starting point and the Commission recognising our position and taking that on board in how it is approaching the negotiations. The negotiation has to play out yet.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Commission has recognised our position so that aspect goes into the overall mix.
That makes sense, whatever happens.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does that mean the Commission has recognised our position and that our position is the European position?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, that has been informative in forming the European position. There will be other sides in the negotiation who will have a different view and there is no way of knowing how it will play out. I will be holding and keeping a very clear line of communication with the Commissioner in relation to trying to hold it to what we have established. That is all to play out.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
At the previous meeting a while back, we spoke about how if the Norwegians, the Faroese and the Icelanders do not agree to it, the option is open for the EU to pursue a legal case on that. Is there any appetite for that or does the Minister envisage that it might do that or is that totally off the scale?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would Dr. Beamish or Mr. Rihan like to come in on this point?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Listen-----
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On mackerel.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, I mean-----
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I know it is not concluded.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What has been happening is entirely unsustainable and unacceptable, so-----
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It has been unsustainable for a number of years.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Where we are at the moment is that negotiations are ongoing. Ideally people will cop on and we will get a sensible approach because what has been happening is ultimately unsustainable. The fish will be fished unsustainably and will be gone and it will be kaput and it cannot go on. What is important as regards the European position is that we continue to get our line across and do not see our position eroded. I have advocated strongly at European level that we need to look at what steps we can take to increase leverage in relation to other steps. At the moment, let us engage in the co-operative approach and try to bring sense to the equation and get an outcome that is sensible in the long term.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That has not been successful until now.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No, and other steps have not been taken so far by the Commission either.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is the Commission willing to take other steps?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Thus far it has not happened. I have advocated strongly that it should.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Minister has advocated for the Commission to take other steps.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have, yes.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What has the Commission's response been?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Commission's response is that it has been advocating very strongly itself on unsustainability but we have not seen any other steps taken in that regard. It is now over two years since the last agreement fell in 2020 and it is in no-one's interest to see this situation continue. Let us hope we can reach an agreement.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If the Minister has been advocating to the Commission that it should be taking other steps, the Commission has accepted that argument and that is its position on that. Whose actual decision is it?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is ultimately the Commissioner's and the Commission's decision.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
They have already accepted the argument.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Pardon?
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
They have already accepted the argument.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Which argument?
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That it is unsustainable and that something has to happen.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, absolutely.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
So-----
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In fairness, the Commission has acted as the grown-ups on the need to be sustainable. When you look at the approach being taken at European level to manage fisheries, we are trying to follow science and make sure we get to a stage where all stocks are fished to sustainable yields. The Commission and the EU have been very responsible and proactive in engagement with other coastal states on the need to follow the science and take proportionate shares of that. I wrote to the Commissioner about that not so long ago to lay out our strong position on that. We are now in the middle of negotiations and hopefully the result will be better than it was in other years but if not, we will take it up again and follow on from that.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I would hope that next year would be better.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Well, listen-----
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does the Commission hope that next year will be better as well or does the Commission think next year-----
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Where we are at at the moment is that we are hope there will be an outcome or conclusion as part of the negotiations that are under way at the minute.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In regard to mackerel in Norwegian waters, the Minister accepts the Danish position on the exchange quota they have. What exactly does that mean?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Sorry, did I accept what?
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Danish position on the quota for mackerel in-----
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Basically this is something that we have identified and taken up the mantle on. I want to recognise the role of our fisheries attaché, Mr. Colm Ó Súilleabháin, who is at Brussels level and is working with my team here. He put this on the agenda and on the radar at European level. What happened in the past was there was a transfer of mackerel from western waters to Norwegian waters and because there was an agreement with Norway, Denmark traditionally had been fishing that quota in Norwegian waters. That has been going on for 20 to 30 years. The importance of that mackerel to the Danish is that quota is around 40% of their entire mackerel industry, so it is a massive piece for them. However, we have been making the case clearly that in the absence of a Norwegian agreement, the transfer does not take place from western waters to Norway and therefore, that should stay in European waters and we should be able to fish that instead. It has been a hot topic and I was accused by the Danish at the European Council meeting of trying a midnight heist for raising this and addressing it. No more than the way we fight for our mackerel and our fish, you can see the importance it holds for other member states. The Commission's legal position does back up the merits of the argument we are making. It is now very much part of the discussion and trying to ensure we have a successful an outcome as we can get on that. It is something we have identified and have gone after and we continue to try to achieve progress on.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is good that we are fighting for something at that level.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We are fighting for a lot of things, Deputy.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is very important. On bluefin tuna, the Minister said the British have a quota for bluefin tuna now because of Brexit and stuff like that and that gives an equality for Ireland, as regards the EU. Is that argument accepted by the Commission or the EU?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Even more than any other species I have seen, every kilogram of bluefin tuna is fought over and I saw this last year in the debate. It was fought over to the last kilogram and is highly sought after. As for other member states, the quota is set, like with other stocks and species, based on allocation keys and on fishing track record. The challenge is that we did not have fishing track record whenever the relative stability of bluefin tuna was set in the 1990s. I have outlined in my opening remarks how we believe that has changed now the UK has left and due to the agreement at ICCAT. No member state will be in any way willing to give away a kilogram or to cede but likewise I will go at this full tilt. We know the challenges involved in that and how difficult that will be.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When can we expect to see a resolution or an outcome to this?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will put it on the agenda of the December meeting of the Fisheries Council. It is important we take that battle and fight it. Like everything else, it is qualified majority voting. Any gain we ultimately get would be at the expense of other member states who have a share already, so no doubt it will be sharply resisted.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
As for the decommissioning proposal, does the Minister see the current proposal of 64 vessels as being adequate and the end of the decommissioning?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The advice I received from the fishing representatives and the sea fisheries task force was that was the level we should go for. The subscriptions and applications we have received have been fully subscribed to the level we sought. Based on the assessment from the sea fisheries task force it is adequate but it remains to be seen if everyone will follow through on their applications. It is not an easy decision for those who decide to do it. It is their livelihood but for those that remain in the fleet, they will be economically stronger because the quota that is freed up from the boats that decommission will be reallocated to the existing fleet, so they therefore have more fish to fish than they would have otherwise had. It remains to be seen and perhaps Mr. Rihan has more insight into this.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. Mr. Rihan said in his response that the fishing groups looked for decommissioning. Is that his view, that it was totally in agreement with the fishing groups and that this is what they want?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The sea fisheries taskforce report I received was agreed unanimously.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I do not know if it was unanimously agreed.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No fisheries producer organisation I am aware of has recommended to its members that they should not take it. I have very deliberately brought all key stakeholders together to advise me on two fronts, first, on how to respond to the impact of Brexit quota challenges, and second, on how we fight our battle at European-level on both fronts. I stepped out the advice in relation to how we combine our collective perspectives and capacities to fight the battle at European level. Subsequent to that, I also brought people together to advise me on the Common Fisheries Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy review group, and on how we can put strategies together to maximise our position there. That is the recommendation that came from the sea fisheries taskforce.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is that response from the taskforce what the Minister bases that the fisheries groups are all on board with the decommissioning on?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There are a number of different schemes came from the taskforce, including the tie-up scheme, the decommissioning scheme, the Brexit processing capital support scheme, and the Brexit blue economy enterprise development scheme. They all came from that taskforce and I have sought to follow through on all of those schemes. No more than myself, I am sure every organisation would be of the view that it would prefer not to decommission and would prefer to source more fish and get more fish. That is absolutely fair. I think we would all share that view. The taskforce recommended decommissioning very clearly, and again no organisation has recommended to its members that they should not consider it. It is a reluctant response from all of us and one that it is regarded as necessary to respond to the post-Brexit situation. We were the first to do it and we have seen other countries launch decommissioning schemes since then to respond to the impact of Brexit on them.
Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have a final question. One of my last questions was about the taskforce report and the review of the Common Fisheries Policy. Does the Minister think the taskforce report is strong enough and will put him in a good position as regards to negotiating a position on the Common Fisheries Policy review?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It certainly strengthens our position and means that as an industry, a sector and a country we are together in the way we move forward. I have been very much informed at all stages by working with the sector and by its views and perspectives. The European Council meeting in Brussels will start at 9 a.m. on Sunday and run all day Monday and probably overnight Monday into Tuesday morning. I will meet with people from the sector when I arrive in Brussels, that is, those who are in Brussels. I will also meet remotely with other, including those at home. I will keep them up to speed with how the negotiations are going. Likewise, as for putting ourselves in the best possible position to deal with the Common Fisheries Policy review, I have worked with them on that as well. Every other country will have a different view and perspective from us and everybody will be battling and looking to retain their situation, and improve it if they can. It does not mean it is easy but I certainly think in terms of working together it is the strongest way to commence that.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There are a few short questions from Deputy Michael Collins and Deputy Mac Lochlainn. Deputy Michael Collins will go first, briefly.
Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have two questions. One is on the fuel subsidy. The Minister has been asked about that and said he cannot apply it here. How is it that the French Government can and that Irish trawlers who fish there have been getting it in France? Surely we are all under the one European umbrella and what is good for them surely should be good for our fishermen who are seriously struggling with massive costs and do not come in under the fuel subsidy schemes for electricity usage, even though they use a massive amount of power?
I also have a question about piers. Allocations to piers was mentioned with Schull getting €123,000, Baltimore getting €139,000 and Courtmacsherry getting €154,000, which is greatly welcomed. There are 250 piers under Cork County Council. Does the Minister have an update on the working piers that need very serious investment ? A breakwater is needed in Baltimore and it is in a special area of conservation, SAC, area. The Department needs to ensure something happens there. Councillor Joe Carroll, a Fianna Fáil councillor, asked me last week to make sure this was brought up in the Dáil, which I have done. There is also the serious issue of the weighing of fish in Baltimore for trawlers that come in there. We were there a couple of weeks ago at a hugely successful launch of Sheehy's massive trawler there. I congratulate them on that investment in a very difficult time. Keelbeg Pier in Union Hall is also a working fishing pier. The Minister has been in Union Hall. These piers need real investment and they are crying out for it.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On the piers and harbours, normally there is €3 million or €4 million per year total investment in local authority piers and harbours. Over this year, taking into account what I announced today, the total amounts to €56 million so it is multiples of that. I made a significant decision today. Normally funding from the Government is 75% and 25% from the local authority. I have brought that up to 95% from the Government and 5% from the local authority. For investment of more than €6 million in Cork, 5% of that or €300,000 will be what it will cost Cork County Council to achieve that €6 million.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Minister did not forget Donegal.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No, I did not forget Donegal. I am not sure if that particular one was applied for by Cork County Council but I know Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan is constantly in touch with me and was advocating on all of these piers and was delighted to be able to deliver on them. I have no doubt that when Deputy Michael Collins is next speaking to the Taoiseach about Cork and the Government delivering in Cork he will be able to include the €6 million that is coming from the Government to deliver here. I know Sheehy's launched their boat in Baltimore recently and I was glad to get an invitation to attend but unfortunately I was not able to that particular weekend. However, I wish Mr. Ronan Sheehy and all the family well. Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan was in touch with me on that and I know it was a good day all round.
With regard to fuel, the French had a particular approach to subsidising the fuel. The approach I took was the consecutive months tie-up scheme to ensure that those who were going out to fish were coming back with more fish on deck and were able to help address the cost of fuel as part of that. As I said earlier in response to Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan, I continue to engage at Government level to see what we can do and if there is potential looking forward. Things have improved somewhat, thankfully. Prior to the invasion of Ukraine in the middle of February, marine gas and oil in terms of its international price was at 67 cent per litre. That peaked in June at €1.11 per litre. Just prior to the invasion, it was 67 cent per litre and marine gas and oil peaked in June at €1.11 per litre. Last week it was down to 68 cent per litre and this week the international benchmark is at 71 cent per litre. It costs a lot more if one is buying in Greencastle or Castletownbere than what that benchmark is but there is a bigger differential now between what the international benchmark was and what the retail price was. It has eased somewhat. However, I am conscious this is something that has not gone away and we do not know what the next number of months will hold and I am considering the situation and engaging with regard to what could be possible.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Deputy Mac Lochlainn has one quick question.
Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I had given way earlier because I had thought there would be more time.
On fuel, all the submissions from the producer organisations made a particular point. It must be remembered that if you were an inshore fisher you could not avail of a tie-up scheme so they got no support at all. The tie-up scheme is funded from the Brexit adjustment reserve fund. There has been no contribution from the Exchequer at all to help our industry. It has already taken a hit in the context of prices, as the Minister indicated. There is a need for support. I have appealed on so many occasions for the Minister to provide support.
I will not take too much more time. I do not ask the Minister to reply because he has already responded to Deputy Michael Collins. I cannot understand what is happening. Is the Minister satisfied that the €60 million that is being allocated for the decommissioning scheme will be enough to cover the 64 vessels that have applied?
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Our assessment is that it is likely to meet the demand.
Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have talked about the profound concerns around the issue of mackerel within the waters of Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland. We have no relationship with ICES. This issue has dragged on. The Minister knows the concerns of our industry in that regard and in the context of blue whiting. I acknowledge that he has been engaging with the industry, but I am not exaggerating when I state that I am informed that if these two issues are not resolved in a fair way, it will be the final nail in the coffin for much of our industry. That is how serious matters are. I appeal to the Minister to keep the lines of communication with all the producer organisations open. A number of them have representatives in Brussels as we speak. As the Minister knows, they have engaged with the Commissioner. They are doing their utmost to make the case in the best interests of our country. I ask that whatever position the Minister is taking in negotiations be aligned with what they are asking for. They are sincere on what is needed for our industry. In the context of both issues, it is critical that we are aligned with the position of the industry, that we understand how serious this is and, bearing in mind that there has not been fair treatment after Brexit, that we get a fair share. The feedback our industry is getting is that a number of the other countries apparently support and sympathise with our position. I appeal to the Minister to be in constant dialogue with our industry and producer organisations, particularly those that are most concerned with pelagic fishing and the four larger producers. That communication should be ongoing on an almost daily basis. The Minister's senior officials should be talking to them on a daily basis in order to update them and do everything we can to get this right. That is all I appeal for.
Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I assure the Deputy that I am and I will be in contact with them. I met them for about three hours ten days ago. I will meet them as soon as I land in Brussels to keep them up to speed. We have a team representing us in Brussels, where the negotiations are ongoing. That team is in close contact with them as well and will remain so. We are aligned and we have the same objective. My only objective is to get the best possible outcome and get as much fish as we possibly can for our fishers next year. I will battle at European level to get the best outcome possible in the context of all the moving parts relating to the negotiations. I will take on board the pooled intelligence and experience on how we best do that. The industry will be engaging with its counterparts. The industry's counterparts in other countries are pushing for a larger transfer of blue whiting quota, which is not what we want. There is a role for the industry in terms of its industry colleagues, to battle and to try to influence what is coming forward from other industry representatives at European level in the same way I will be doing at political level.
On blue whiting, thankfully, the ICES scientific advice for next year is for it to be an 81% increase in allowable catch. As a result, there will be a significant increase in blue whiting catch next year. We will need that and we want to minimise the transfer. Over the past two years, I have succeeded in getting the transfer reduced. It was a good outcome, and we made gains. It is a new game, a new 90 minutes, a new battle and a new engagement. There is no guarantee it will be the same but I will be working right alongside our industry to try to get the best outcome and to ensure that happens. We shall see how it evolves.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Minister and his officials for attending. I know the Minister has another engagement. We will suspend the meeting to allow witnesses to enter for the second session.